Subscribe

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Justine California (not her real name) was a Clinton staffer during his first term. I have no way to prove this, but based on email correspondence with her, I happen to believe this is true. You can decide for yourselves. She does not want to Hillary bash, or dish dirt, (sorry) but she has some good observations, as she has personal experience with the Clintons, something I think is pretty damn interesting. Instead of just having a Q&A, I suggested she write a post as a jumping off point, and let her pick the topic and roll with it. I think she did a pretty good job.

Small Cap CEO meets the Feudal Lord.

Justine California

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will campaign together this week.

Yes, this event has everything to do with the title line above. I don’t need to tell you who is whom. You already know.

Management style is something I do every day. I founded a tech startup last year, and it’s not my first. As an entrepreneurial, libertarian leaning Californian, my management style has a lot to do with everyone carrying their own bag, and taking responsibility for outcomes.

Before my tech startup life? I was a young, underpaid Washington staffer. My pathway in the communications, event planning and fundraising realms did bring me into support roles for the Clinton administration for a time.

Why me? Because, even though I was not at all a Democrat, I was young and for some reason willing to get paid almost nothing to get kicked around by glammed out feudal lords. I mean, the Clinton people. But the cool part is that this stunning medieval movie was seen up close and unrehearsed.

While the happenings, victories and defeats of both the Republican and Democratic primaries of 2008 have been thoroughly overanalyzed, I’ve seen less examination of the candidate’s internal management styles, financial policies and “corporate” choices than I perhaps wanted. Media analysis tends to favor a focus on each candidate’s outward presentation of issues, personality, persuasion, empathy, or fashion choices – rather than the essential internal building processes by which they are created.

But what about the gap between internal (campaign) and external (public) management styles? What about that basic goal: running the company? I can design a great gadget, but if I cannot build, mobilize or sell that gadget, it doesn’t go anywhere.

If the gap is wide enough, an extraordinary amount of energy must be spent hiding – or at least compensating for – what’s going on inside, lest it contradict the outer brand and vision. Enough obsessive focus on the compensating, and you won’t see your own vision anymore.

That Hillary’s campaign suffered from such a huge gap is obvious.

But how much of this gap came from “learned and earned” behavior – from the ways of her husband’s presidency?

I offer my own viewpoint to this one. Hillary, in the eyes of many, and perhaps in her own eyes – was Bill Clinton’s Vice President. She ran from this long past – and secret -position, and from its learning. The strengths and weakness she exhibited on the trail are consistent with this viewpoint. She interestingly enough, did not run as a Senator, though she clearly is one.

I am not opening a Hillary bashing session . I am, as a female business owner and CEO, desirous of an eventual female presidency – ideally a more conservative candidate who shows Hillary’s level of grit and intellect.

But right now I’m looking at this from an MBA’s point of view.

Why does Obama clearly appear to be the better CEO of the two, the small cap, exponential growth pick? Why does Hillary appear as the walled-in, moated feudal lord, more about vassal loyalty than colleague merit? How did this happen internally? What is the Clinton business style defined by, and why is it so different from the Clinton public persona (I speak of both Clintons here.) What comparisons can you make to the corporate world to illustrate your view?

Due to my briefly Clintonic past, I may cite actual observations within this discussion. These observations are not metaphysical truths – they are merely the subjective viewpoints of a fly on the wall. But sometimes the fly on the wall sees more angles of the room than the invited guests at the dinner table.

A friend told me Sunday: “I now know more about Tim Russert than I do many members of my family.”

After Russert’s shocking death Friday at age 58, television kept serving up witnesses to his expertise, intelligence, diligence, kindness, faith, love of family, Buffalo and the Buffalo Bills. The self-indulgence was breathtaking.

On Monday’s “Today,” Matt Lauer interviewed Russert’s son, Luke. The show basically gave over the first half-hour to the Russert story. Presidential candidates aren’t questioned at such length on morning programs.

I saw Luke Russert on Today, and while I was really impressed at what an extraordinary young man he was, I thought it was a bit much.

Is the coverage professional? A lot of the comments about Russert should have been saved for the office. NBC should have approached covering Russert as the network would have any other public figure who had died. Hard to do, yes, but that should have been the goal. Instead, Russert’s colleagues used the airwaves to work through their grief. Some people will excuse that style out of sympathy, but that approach just wasn’t right.

Again, I agree, while Russert was a fine journalist, a lot of other important stuff happened this weekend.

Will journalists ask the tough questions of themselves that they ask of others? Not during grief, evidently. Brokaw hinted that Russert had his critics. Could we have heard from them? Well, no. The coverage seemed designed to put Russert on the fast track to sainthood.

Bam. There’s the upshot here, and in particular, my problem with the style of eulogising that has become the standard these days. This is the same mentality that drives people to put up giant memorials on the sites where people (usually unkown to them personally) have died, which I wrote about here.

Or even the coverage of people like Anna Nicole Smith, or Natalie Holloway.

I think in some way, this over-memorialising is a result of the breakdown of the family. People start to feel like the people on TV are their family. In the lack of support they get at home, they find solace in being devastated at someone else’s loss. It obviously fills some vacuum. In this age of more and more single moms and baby-daddies, people need to feel connected to something, a connection they don’t seem to be getting from their families.

Luke Russert seemed to be dealing with this just fine, probably because he has a strong family connection, and lot’s of support, and it speaks highly of his dad.

We should feel sympathy for Russerts’ family, but really, this is not a national tragedy, and it shouldn’t be covered as such.

Tim Russert seemed like a fine man, and his son is proof of how well he raised him, actually handling this in a much more mature way than most of the press. But I wouldn’t say he was an icon, and I found him to be more biased than anyone else on the right seems to have, and in particular, his regular segments on the Today show were p-r-e-t-t-y biased. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t a great guy personally, but I think he wore his “Meet The Press/Debate” hat, and he wore his “Today/MSNBC” hat equally. That’s just my opinion.

On a personal note, expect to see pretty light blogging here for awhile. Got a lot going on that needs tending to, that’s a lot more important than ranting on the internet, (as much as i enjoy it) and you know…..priorities. Believe it or not, this crap takes a lot of time to produce, since most of my content is original, and I try to make it as interesting as possible, so a single post sucks up about 2 or 3 hours of my day, as well as posting on DPUD, and checking and commenting on all the Moronblogs, and you can begin to see this is starting to take up too much of my time that could be better spent elsewhere, at least right now.

Most of the time, a kiss is just a kiss in the stands at Seattle Mariners games. The crowd hardly even pays attention when fans smooch.

But then last week, a lesbian complained that an usher at Safeco Field asked her to stop kissing her date because it was making another fan uncomfortable.

According to a Mariners press release, they were told they could kiss, but were asked to “Tone it down” not an unreasonable request. The release says the women responded to the simple request like this:

The women refused to modify their behavior, began swearing at the seating hosts and complained that they were being singled out for their sexual orientation,” the club said.

This is one of the women.

This has apparently stirred up OUTRAGE from the gay community, so let’s start with some douche from a group called “Equal Rights Washington”:

Certain individuals have not yet caught up. Those people see a gay or lesbian couple and they stare or say something,” said Josh Friedes of Equal Rights Washington. “This is one of the challenges of being gay. Everyday things can become sources of trauma.”

Trauma? Look you fucking crybabies, has it ever occurred to you selfish assholes, that maybe, just maybe, some people don’t want to have to explain homosexuality to their 8 year-old at a baseball game? You want respect? Have some respect for others.

Homosexuals kissing at a major league baseball game is inappropriate, it’s rude, it’s disruptive and it’s disrespectful, and gay people with any class whatsoever know it. If you can’t be bothered to have even the most basic respect for common civility, for the wishes of the majority of people at a baseball game, then fuck you.

But wait, it still gets even better, when “sex advice” columnist Dan Savage, who writes for one of the Seattle alternative papers has to chime in:

“They (the Mariners) go out of their way to say it’s a quote-unquote family setting,” Savage said. “As a gay season-ticket holder, we’ve never been quite sure what that means exactly. I constantly see people see making out. My son has noticed and asked, `Do they show the ballgame on women’s foreheads?’”

First of all, what the fuck does “gay” have to do with “season ticket holder.” Unless there’s a gay season I don’t know about, you’re either a season ticket holder, or not. Secondly, Mr. Savage knows damn well what a “Family Setting” is, and yes fuckface, there’s a difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals kissing at a major league baseball game and you know it.

You assholes do nothing to further your own cause, or get anyone to feel sympathy for you. It’s precisely this kind of childish, selfish, rude disruptive behavior that puts people off, and then you have the fucking nerve to whine about discrimination.

This is a prime example of why gay marriage is going to be a major problem. Imagine the lawsuits that will be thrown around when a gay married couple wants to make out in ANY “family” setting, and if they are asked to tone it down.

Rush Limbaugh made a great point on his show yesterday. He pointed out that for all the “excitement” over Obama, this is a guy that barely squeaked out this nomination. With the whole of the MSM in his corner, Hillary, who for the first time felt the sting of MSM bias, gave him a major run for his money.

I’m sticking to my prediction that Obama will be shellacked in the general. If I’m wrong, and he actually wins, then I say we deserve the Government we get.

I’m amazed at how this country has changed since 9/11. It certainly didn’t go the way I thought it would, I actually believed we would become a more serious, thoughtful, patriotic nation. I thought we’d step back from the insane celebrity worship, silly partisan politics, and general ignorance of the Clinton years, but we’ve plowed ahead in dumbing down at an accelerated pace, and Obama is exhibit A.

If the American people can be sold this lemon, then it’s already too late.

A couple quick thoughts about McCain, and the line that’s beginning to get drawn in the sand between conservative bloggers. There seems to be three camps forming on this. In no particular order they are:

1) Luke-Warm McCain supporters.

2) Those Who Will Sit This One Out. (that would be me)

3) Luke-Warm McCain supporters who are pissed off at Those Who Will Sit This One Out.

I guess we could have an addendum of Hard-Core McCain supporters, but there’s only one that I know of.

I have no problem with the first two, but the third group is starting to piss me off. The general attitude seems to be becoming very angry and accusatory to Those Who Will Sit This One Out. As if choosing not to vote for McCain is in effect a vote for Obama, and somehow Those Who Will Sit This One Out will be responsible for making him President.

Sorry group three, but you’re wrong. It’s not my fault the Republicans seem to have some kind of death wish for their own party. Not voting is still a choice, maybe not the choice you like, but I certainly have the right to make that choice, and who the fuck are you to tell me it’s going to be ALL MY FAULT if a full blown communist becomes the next President of the United States?

If I have a choice between eating a steaming pile of dung, a steaming pile of dung with maggots, or not eating, I think I’ll choose not eating thank you very much, but that’s just me.

If you want to vote for McCain, or campaign for him, go for it, I honestly don’t care, but don’t get all haughty about me or anyone else not voting for him. If you want to be pissed off, direct your anger where it belongs, with the Republican Party that put up such a dismal candidate in an election year that was a gimme for them.

It’s my duty as an American to voice my displeasure with a political party that does not represent my views, and “holding my nose” as I pull the lever for a guy that in no way represents my views, or in my opinion, the views of the Republican Party in general, does nothing to voice my displeasure. Not voting for McCain is my only outlet to voice my opinion to a party that that won’t hear anything else.

I won’t chastise you for doing what you feel you must, and I expect the same in return.

I love how the parasites come out at the end of an administration, and throw blame around. Especially a monkey like McClellan, who’s only role was to address get badgered by, the press. McClellan hits Bush on everything, but I just want to talk about Iraq.

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

Propaganda? There wasn’t enough propaganda. Here’s the other thing that has always bugged me. The Bush White House itself, keeps referring to Iraq as a “war.” Or “The War.” I never got that, because

A: It’s not a war. Not. A. War.

B: Calling it a war automatically sets us up to “lose” it. If the public thinks of Iraq as an actual war, then they expect an actual victory, a clearly defined victory, which they will never, ever get. There will never be a VI day. Victory in this case will be ambiguous at best, because WE’RE NOT AT WAR WITH IRAQ.

I never understood how the White House could not seem to grasp this most basic concept in it’s attempt at “selling” the action in Iraq. It’s like the most simple PR move in the world to not raise the publics expectations beyond what you can deliver, but Bush just keeps on talking about “The War.”

I’ll never understand why Bush didn’t sell this for what it was, deposing a brutal dictator, and enforcing the U.N.’s own toothless resolutions that after 9/11, just couldn’t be ignored anymore. It’s just that simple, context is everything. In the context of enforcing U.N. resolutions, Iraq is just a military action. In the context of a FUCKING WAR, it’s a whole different ballgame. People suddenly expect big results. Nobody wants to lose a war. Bush and his own staff, have gone out of their way to put Iraq in the context of a war.

Everytime Bush talked, or talks about this, the words U.N, Resolutions, and Enforcement should be used. Everytime. But nooooo. War. We’re “at war.” I can’t remember the last time Bush has even mentioned the U.N. when discussing Iraq, and with his insistence on calling it a war, he owns it now. We all do.

Citing the burden they place on taxpayers who pay for government workers’ health insurance, Sarasota County officials announced Monday that they no longer will hire smokers.

After the country is free of smokers, all of you that like cheeseburgers better get ready to love delicious ricecakes.

What’s that? you say you like to ride dirt bikes on the weekend? Sorry, too dangerous. Next.

Enjoy a couple drinks after work? Do you have any idea the cost of alcohol related health care? A daily urine test will be required if you want to work here.

Is that a pair of rollerblades in the back seat of your car? Broken bones cost the state plenty buddy.

How dare you drink coffee in the morning, don’t you know how many caffeine related illnesses there are?

Is that a fucking Twinkie in your hand??!!! Security!!!!!!

I’ve said this before, but this Jihad against smokers is the state dipping their feet in the water of fascism, and when smoking is fully banned, they WILL move on to something else. It won’t stop there when they see they can dictate personal behaviour without anyone putting up a fight.

I’ve actually thought about this a lot. I completely understand how many Republicans will grudgingly vote for McCain, because obviously, it’s the better choice of what’s available. The “Lesser Of Two Evils” approach. My thought on that is, Republicans will be more than happy to “Lesser Of Two Evils” us right into socialism. As long as they have power, I honestly don’t think they could give a crap about ideology.

Another thing that comes up a lot is “I’ll vote for him, but I won’t like it!”

The bad news here is, there’s not a “But I Don’t Like It” box to check on the ballot. A vote is a vote, and that’s how Republicans will view it. You like McCain, and everything he’s about, because you voted for him. It’s just that simple.

You want Republicans to get back to conservatism? It won’t be easy. They’re not going to just suddenly move to the right because we weren’t happy about voting for McCain. Angry emails aren’t going to alert them to the error of their ways. Blogging about how much you “don’t like it” is pointless.

They have to lose. Lose big, like to a junior Senator with a Muslim name. They have to do a political face plant. They have to lose all power before they even consider what it is they might be doing wrong, and wake up from the fog they’ve been aimlessly wandering around in for at least the last four years.

Basically, that means if you really want the Republicans to represent your ideology again, then don’t vote for McCain, and let Obama win. There, I said it.

You want conservatism back? Then you’ll have to pay for it, in blood and sweat, and the worst four years of your adult life. Sacrifice. That’s the sacrifice. Like I said, it won’t be easy. Hoping they come around isn’t going to be enough. You may have to sacrifice one or two Supreme Court seats, but remember, even Reagan screwed that up.

Is an Obama win a guarantee they’ll move back to the right? Nope, it’s a gamble. They could in theory, move further to the left. On the other hand, putting McCain in the White House is an absolute guarantee they will continue leftward.

That’s my opinion. This election is a crossroads, a test. A test to see how far left we can be pushed, before we push back. It literally is a bi-partisan step towards socialism.

Who the President ultimately ends up to be is almost immaterial. They both will do great harm to this country, it’s just a matter of degrees. Our choice has been all but taken away, and if we take the easy road and vote for McCain but “don’t like it”, then we better get used to voting for people we don’t like, because that’s all we’re gonna get if we cave to the “safe” choice.

You gotta bet big to win big, that’s how it works.

All the bitching in the world means nothing if Republicans still get your vote, even when they offer up the most left-wing candidate in modern history.

No surprise here, it’s just pathetic that he will easily get elected in California. If I were running against him, my entire campaign would consist of constantly re-playing him losing his shit at his ten year old daughter, and only that. Just a picture of his “Mad Face” and that phone call on a continuous loop.

Truly a labor of hate. The only way this mess could lose more money would be to cast Al Franken. Step-Mommy must be beaming. Josh Brolin is finally starting to get some prime roles after like, 30 years, he must really hate Bush to be in this dog.

This is just one of the many reasons I’m probably sitting this election out. We haven’t even got a Dem nominee yet and this guy has pissed me off absolutely infuriated me, so many times I’ve lost count.

I know conservatives are terrified of a Dem win this year, but before you get too worried, consider this:

McCain will be a disaster. He will piss off Republicans constantly, Democrats will attack him, even though he’s on their side, and the press will make him the new Bush. He’ll throw ridiculous temper tantrums, and say the most ignorant shit you can imagine, on a daily basis. He’s a moderate, which means he believes in nothing.He doesn’t even know what he is, and nobody wants to follow a guy that has no direction. He’ll be more of a Steward than a President.

He’s going to be a band-aid on the gushing jugular of the Republican party. Sure, we’ll get a President with an “R” by his name, but by the time he leaves the smoking wreckage of his only term, he’ll have done so much damage to what’s left of the party, he’ll guarantee a full blown Dem sweep in every election for the next twenty years. McCain is the lynch-pin in the grenade of destruction of the Republican party.

If by some miracle Obama or Hillary actually get elected, (which BTW, I believe to be impossible) consider this:

They are not gonna be able to end the Iraq conflict with the simple wave of a capitulating hand. Things will most likely stay the same there for the most part. Past that, the differences between either of them and McCain are negligible, and they will be ineffective at getting their most socialist agenda’s off the table. They will have only one term, if they don’t get impeached for complete incompetence.

Look, the next four years are gonna suck no matter what. A Dem will do a massive amount of damage, but it will be short term damage. McCain will do long term damage. A Republican President (McCain) now, will mean a Democrat everything later. McCain is the Anti-Christ Republican that will bring the Apocalypse to the party.

We’ve survived Democratic Presidents before, we can again, and I just can’t get behind this jackass because he has an imaginary “R” in front of his name. Plus, a Dem getting elected could finally slap a little sense into the MIA Republicans, and lead to another Repub comeback. McCain getting elected will make them continue to be useless, over confident choads, who want to rid the party of conservatives.

I’d rather let the Dems dig their own grave, than help McCain dig ours.

That’s my opinion anyway, now I’m gonna go look for a thoughtful story about boobs.